As you well know by know, Eugene is crawling with 2oo-Series Volvos (there was a blue wagon just in front of this one). But its been a while since I’ve seen one of these, a 242 GT, which was only offered in 1978 – 1980 before it was replaced by the Turbo (we’ll save that for another day). The GT had a unique front fascia, lowered suspension, bigger alloy wheels, and of course the obligatory racing stripes. But the question is: Was it really any faster?

Wiki says that these had a “high compression” engine. In some markets, that was a 140-hp engine with a different camshaft, but in the US? Not likely at a time when engines had to run on regular unleaded, and didn’t have today’s sophisticated electronics to compensate for it. Or am I wrong?

31 Comments

I had a “regular” 1980 240 DL 2-door in that very common wedgwood blue color. I may be mistaken, but I believe the GT in the U.S. had the same B21 engine, making all of 107 hp and 114 lb-ft. of torque, the latter at something like 2500 rpm. The compression ratio in mine was 9.3:1, on the high side considering the era, which may explain why I generally had to use 89 or higher octane gas to avoid pinging (87 was specified).

The 242 GT was about handling not acceleration. There were significant suspension upgrades vs the typical 242: stiffer shocks and springs, thicker roll bars, and extra braces for rigidity. It was a slow car but way more fun to drive in the twisties.

No, I have never owned another Volvo, but I had my ’80 for 21 years — bought used in 1982 and sold in 2003. Rust, electrical maladies, and the fact that we no longer needed a 3rd car all factored into the decision to sell. It had about 245K miles at that point.

When my wife and I were considering a new car in 1990, we regarded the 240 as outdated, but did take a look at the 740. We ended up with a ’90 Mercury Sable, which was much less expensive (but very troublesome after it passed 65K miles, just after it was paid off)!

The Sable was sold 3 years before the decade-older Volvo, which tells you something right there.

I’m working on another keeper – my ’98 Nissan Frontier will have spent 14 years in my care come August 14.

A good friend of mine had one of these and I helped him keep it on the road for years. It was as slow as the non-GT variants, but the basic drivetrain was the longest-lasting that I have ever seen in any vehicle. The car eventually was towed away due to the engine harness disintegrating and causing a nasty key-off battery drain, with somewhere over 400K miles on it.

I had a ride in a 242GT for a couple of laps around two separate rally stages last year, one was very muddy, 6″+ deep in places, and the other was a former speedway built in an old quarry that hadn’t been used for 25 or more years. Not that much power but plenty fast enough! They aren’t worth much but can be found in decent shape, maybe the price will pick up one day.

We got the 242GT new in 1979 when Australia did, but they were extremely rare. All were silver with an orange stripe under the black one on the side (has it faded away on the feature car?). There were other orange highlights inside and out too. An NZ Volvo fan site that I frequent, http://www.volvoadventures.com, says the Australian/NZ 242GT had the B23E fuel injected engine, 10:1 compression ratio and an ‘H’ camshaft (whatever that is) good for 104kW/140bhp and 190Nm. The ‘turbo’ wheels are on all the ones I’ve ever seen on the road here.

I’m late to this, but a really nice find! A friend’s dad had one of these GTs and he drove it for years. I never saw it, but it was replaced with a 1993 240 Classic sedan, the limited edition “last 240” special edition. It was also sharp – metallic burgundy, tan leather, and genuine wood accents on the instrument panel. Sadly, the Classic was totalled in a minor collision.

I know I sound like a broken record, but please Volvo, give us a retro 240!

The 1977 242 actually was the first year to be equipped with O2 sensors. I actually own a 242 dl, and originally it did not come equipped with a catalytic converter, from sweden, where the car was originally purchased while a family was on vacation. I have documentation on this. As far as the 242 gt being any faster, it was slightly faster than the stock B21, which boasted about 99hp at the rear wheels. The real kicker is, that with just the 8 more hp of the GT model, it was only meerly .01mph faster…

I own a 79 242gt. It’s a fun car, but has the Bosch continuous Injection system, which was standard on the 2.1l engine in the US and can be hard to get parts for. The ride is lower than a regular 240 and has stiffer suspension. My particular car was ordered from the factory without the orange and black pin striping… My car has the same wheels as the one in the picture, but I’m not entirely sure if they were factory original. The cam was more aggressive and the compression was higher in the gt model 2.1. The rear differential ratio was also different, giving the car a quicker acceleration. Between these points and the continuous Injection system, this is what made the car faster/ a bit more powerful than the regular 240s…